^<p-^^l 


0 



7 

:: -t 

0 

9 

9 

-: 

7 

0 

Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/briefreasonswhysOOcausiala 


%. 

#^% 


•^- 


^" 


# 


^/^ 


BRIEF   REASONS 

WHY   THE  '  SUFFERERS   BY   FRE>:CH   SPOILATIONS 

PRIOR   TO   1800   SHOULD   BE    INDEMNIFIED 

BY   THEIR   OWN   GOVERNMENT. 


i^csB  imm 


.,^0'l 


BRIEF    REASOXS 

Why  the  Sufferers  by  French  Spoliations  prior  to  1800  should  be 
indemnified  by  their  own  Government 


HISTORICAL  FACTS. 


In  1793,  Fmnce  and  Great  Britain  being  at  war,  committed  exten- 
sive depredations  on  American  commerce,  and  the  merchants,  alarmed, 
began  to  withdraw  from  the  ocean,  to  the  great  detriment  of  the 
Treasury,  when  the  Grovernment,  through  the  Secretary  of  State, 
(Thomas  Jefferson,)  issued  the  following  circular,  dated  August  27, 
1793: 

"  I  have  it  in  charge  from  the  President  to  assure  the  merchants  of 
the  United  States  concerned  in  foreign  commerce  or  navigation,  that 
attention  will  be  paid  to  any  injuries  they  may  suffer  on  the  high  seas 
or  in  foreign  countries,  contrary  to  the  law  of  nations  or  to  existing 
treaties ;  and  that,  on  their  forwarding  hither  well  authenticated  evi- 
dences of  the  same,  proper  proceedings  will  be  adopted  for  their  relief." 
(Doc.  102,  p.  216.) 

Relying  on  these  assurances,  commercial  enterprise  received  a  fresh 
impulse,  and  a  series  of  captures  by  both  belligerents  followed. 
England  provided  for  the  payment  of  those  made  by  her,  but  France, 
acknowledging  her  liability,  advanced  a  counter  claim  for  the  non- 
fulfilment  of  the  stipulations  of  the  treaties  of  1778  and  1788,  gua- 
ranteeing/or^cpr  her  possessions  in  the  West  Indies,  acquired  or  to  be 
acquired,  as  an  equivalent  for  the  supplies  of  men  and  money  fur- 
nished by  her  in  our  struggle  for  independence,  and  which  contributed 
80  largely  to  that  happy  event. 

Two  successive  missions  were  sent  to  France,  viz.,  Pinckney,  Mar- 
shall and  Gerry,  in  1797,  and  Ellsworth,  Davie  and  Murray,  in  1799, 
who  repeatedly  made  large  pecuniary  offers  to  France,  greatly  exceed- 
ing the  proposed  indemnity. 

These  sums  were  promptly  refused  by  the  French  negotiators,  who 
would  not  abrogate  the  privileges  of  our  ports  for  their  privateers 
and  prizes y^>r  o»jy  xiim  that  mltjht  he  nnmed — they  ma(h:  it  the  point 
of  honor.  We  proposed  to  reduce  their  privileges  to  those  of  the 
mi>*t  favored  nation  for  5,000,000  of  francs,  and  to  retluce  the  gua- 
rantee to  an  annual  subsidy  of  §400,000  ;  or  to  extinguish  the  gua- 
rantee for  10,000,000  of  francs,  the  whole  to  be  deducted  from  the 
awards  to  be  made  in  favor  of  the  claims  now  under  consideration,  .'O 
far  as  the  same  would  reach  ;  and  after  much  negotiation  the  claim  of 
private  citizens,  comprising  more  than  one  thousand  vessels  and  car- 
goes, valued  at  upwards  of  fifteen  millions  of  dollars,  were  bartered 
away  for  a  release  of  national  obligations  of  incalculable  value. 


tp:stimony. 

Instructions  from  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  the  EnvnyHf 

in  1799. 

At  the  opening  of  tlie  negotiation  you  will  inform  the  French  Min- 
isters that  the  United  States  expect  from  France,  as  an  mclispeni<ahle 
condition  of  the  treati/,  a  stipulation  to  make  the  citizens  of  the  United 
States  just  compensation  for  all  losses  and  damages  which  they  shall 
have  sustained  by  reason  of  irregular  or  illegal  captures  or  eondemaa- 
tions  of  their  vessels,  and  other  property,  under  color  of  authority  or 
commissions  from  the  French  republic  or  its  agents. 

William  Van  Mxikray,  (one  of  the  Ministers,)  says,  in  a  letter  to- 
James  Madison,  Secretary  of  State,  July  I,  1801  :  "I  wish  I  had 
been  authorized  to  subscribe  to  a  joint  abandonment  of  treaties  and 
indemnities;  as  claims,  thei/  will  always  he  set  off  against  each  other} 
and  I  consider  the  cessation  of  their  claims  to  treaties  as  valuable." 
(Doc.  102,  p.  675.") 

Robert  R.  Livingston,  Slinister  to  France,  April  27, 1803,  says ; 
"The  payment  for  illegal  captures,  with  damages  and  indemnities,  was 
demanded  on  one  side,  and  tl>e  renewal  of  the  treaty  of  1788  on  the 
other )  they  loere  considered  as  of  equal  value,  and  they  only  formed 
the  subject  of  the  2d  article."     (Doc.  102,  p.  717.) 

James  Madison,  (then  Secretary  of  State,)  February  6,  1804, 
says  :  "  The  claims  from  which  France  was  released  were  admitted  by 
France,  and  the  release  teas  for  a  valvahle  consideration  in  a  cor- 
respondent release  of  the  United  States  from  certain  claims  on  them." 
(Doc.  102,  p.  795.) 

John  Marshall,  (one  of  the  Ministers,)  says :  "  I  would  posi- 
tively oppose  any  admission  of  the  claims  of  any  French  citizen  if 
not  accompanied  with  the  admission  of  the  claims  of  American  citizens 
for  property  captured  and  condemned  for  want  of  a  oole  d'equipat/e. 
My  reason  for  conceiving  that  this  ought  to  be  stipulated  expressly, 
was  a  conviction  that,  if  it  was  referred  to  commissioners,  it  would  be 
committing  absolutely  to  chance  as  complete  a  right  as  any  individual 
ever  possessed.     (Journal,  p.  471,  No.  816.) 

"He  (Chief  Justice  Marshall)  stated  that,  having  been  connected 
with  the  events  of  that  period,  and  conversant  with  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  claims  arose,  he  was,  from  his  own  knowledge,  satis- 
fied that  there  was  the  strongest  obligation  on  the  Government  to  com- 
pensate the  sufferers  by  the  French  spoliations."  (Letter  from  Hon. 
W.  C.  Preston,  U.  S.  Senate,  S.  C.) 

Timothy  Pickering,  (Secretary  of  State  in  1800,)  says  :  "  If  the 
relinquishment  (of  these  claims)  had  not  been  made,  the  presenfc 
French  Groveriimeat  (1824)  would  be  responsible;  consequently  the 
relinquishment  by  our  own  Government  having  been  made,  in  considera- 
tion that  the  French  Governmtnt  relinquished  its  demand  for  a  renewal 


3 

of  the  old  treaties,  tlien  it  seeius  clear  tbat,  naonr  Government  applml 
the  meiThunts'  properti/  (o  btij/  off  /hose  old  treaties,  the  sums  so  uppUtd 
should  be  reimlnirsed."     (Letter  19th  Xoveniber,  1824.) 

Monsieur  Roederer  (one  of  the  French  Slinisters  who  negotiated 
the  treaty  of  1800)  said,  in  the  Legislative  Assembly,  26th  November, 
1801  :  "  This  suppression  (of  the  2d  article)  is  a  prudent  and  ami- 
<uible  renuncinthii  of  the  respective  pretensions  which  were  expressed 
in  that  article." 

Napoleon  Booaparte  (First  Consul  in  1800)  says:  "The  suppres- 
sion of  this  article  at  oBce  put  a«  end  to  the  privileges  which  France 
had  by  the  treaties  of  1778,  and  annulled  the  just  claims  which  Ame- 
rica might  have  made  tor  injuries  done  in  time  of  peace."  (Gourgaud's 
Memoirs,  vol.  ii.  p.  95.) 

Message  of  President  jEfFERSON  to  Congress,  December,  1801 : 

[Extrocl.^  "It  18  a  circumstance  of  sincere  gratification  to  me, 
that  on  meeting  the  great  council  of  the  nation,  I  am  able  to  announce 
to  them,  oa  grounds  of  reasonable  certainty,  that  the  wars  and  troubles, 
which  have  for  so  many  years  afflicted  our  sister  nations,  have  at 
length  come  to  an  eod ;  and  that  the  communications,  of  peace  and 
■commerce  are  once  juore  opening  among  them.  Whilst  we  devoutly 
Tctum  thaeks  to  the  beneficent  Being  who  has  been  pleased  to  breathe 
into  them  the  spirit  of  conciliation  and  forgiveness,  we  are  bound, 
•with  peculiar  gratitude,  to  be  thankful  to  Him  that  our  own  peace  has 
heev  preserved  through  so  perilous  a  season,  and  ourselves  permitted 
^nietli/  to  cultivate  the  earth,  and  to  practise  and  improve  those  arts 
wliich  tend  to  iacrease  our  comforts.  The  assurances,  indeed,  of 
friendly  dispo5?ition  received  from  all  the  Powers  with  whom  we  have 
principal  relations,  had  inspired  a  confidence  that  our  peace  with  them 
would  not  have  been  disturbed.  But  a  cessation  of  the  irregularities 
which  had  afflicted  the  commerce  of  neutral  nations,  and  of  the  irri- 
tiitioBS  and  injuries  produced  by  them,  cannot  but  add  to  this  confi- 
•dence;  and  strengthens,  at  the  8ame  time,  the  hope  that  wrongs 
committed  on  unoffending  friends  will  now  be  reviewed  with  candor, 
and  will  be  considered  as  founding  just  claims  of  retribution  for  the 
past,. and  new  assurances  for  the  future." — Wait's  American  State 
Papers,  vol.  iv.  pages  325—26. 

BESOLUTIONS  OF  LEGISLATURES. 

The  following  States  have  at  various  times  recommended  to  Congress 
to  make  appropriations  for  the  iqdemnity  of  sufferers  by  these  spolia- 
tions :  Maine,  Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  Ohio,  Delaware, 
Alabama,  New  Hampshire,  Rhode  Island,  New  York,  Penn- 
gYLVANiA,  Maryland,  Louisiana,  Ark.vnsas. 

REPORTS  OF  COMMITTEES. 

In  April,  1803,  a  report  of  the  facts,  favorable  to  the  claimants 
was  made  by  »  committee,  consisting  of  Giles,  of  Virginia ;  Mitchell, 
pf  New  York;  Lowndes,  of  South  Caroliqa;  ^Iilledge,  of  Georgia, 


Tallmaikjr,  of  Cnnneotiput;  Williams,  of  North  Carolina;  Davir, 
of  Kentucky  ;  and  Grego,  of  Pennsylvania,  on  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

"  Resolved,  That  it  is  proper  to  make  provision  by  law  towards 
indemnifying  the  merchants  of  the  United  States,  for  losses  sustained 
by  them  from  French  spoliations,  the  claims  for  which  losses  have  been 
renounced  by  the  final  ratification  of  the  Convention  with  France,  as 
published  by  proclamation  of  the  President  of  the  United  States." 

February  18,  1807.  Another  committee,  consisting  of  Marion,  of 
South  Carolina  ;  EPPES,  of  Virginia  ;  Geokge  Clinton,  of  New  York  ; 
Tallmadge,  of  Connecticut;  Cutts,  of  Massachusetts  ;  Dickson,  of 
Tennessee;  Blount,  of  North  Carolina;  Findlay,  of  Pennsylvania  ; 
and  Tenney,  of  New  Hampshire,  made  a  report  containing  the  follow- 
ing emphatic  declaration  :  that  this  Government,  by  expunging  the 
second  article  of  our  Convention  of  France,  of  the  oOth  September, 
1800,  became  hound  to  indemnify  the  mrmorialisfH  for  those  just  clnims 
which  the)/  otherwise  tcould  have  riyhtfuHy  had  on  the  Government  of 
France."  Subsequent  reports  to  the  same  effect  (twenty-six  in  number) 
were  made  by  committees  of  both  Houses,  at  the  head  of  which  stood 
Edward  Livingston,  Holmes,  Webster,  Everett,  Wilkins, 
(Chambers,  Hoavard,  Archer,  Morehead,  Gushing,  C.  J.  Inger- 
soll,  Choate,  Clayton,  Truman  Smith  and  Buel,  while  not  a 
ainyle  report  has  been  made  by  the  majority  of  any  committee  in 
either  House  since  the  year  1826,  when,  by  a  resolution  of  Congress, 
they  were  first  put  in  possession  of  all  the  documents  connected  with 
these  transactions. 

CONCLUSION. 

The  irresistible  conclusion  from  the  preceding  facts,  supported  by 
the  uncontradicted  testimony  of  many  of  the  most  eminent  statesmen 
known  in  our  country,  and  who  were  personally  cognizant  of  tho.se 
facts,  is,  that  an  immense  amount  of  the  property  of  private  citizens 
has  been  used  to  purchase  for  the  Government  a  release  from  treaty 
obligations,  which,  had  they  been  in.sisted  on  by  France,  and  performed 
by  us,  would  have  led  to  incalculable  national  injury. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  (article  5  of  amendment.s) 
provides  that  "  private  property  shall  not  be  taken  for  the  public  use 
without  just  compensation. 

In  the  words  of  Edward  Livingston,  then  in  the  United  States 
Senate,  afterwards  Secretary  of  State  under  General  Jackson,  himself 
an  active  participant  in  the  politics  of  that  day :  "  If  so,  can  there  be 
a  doubt,  independent  of  the  constitutional  provisions,  that  the  sufferers 
are  entitled  to  indemnity  ?  Under  that  provision,  is  not  this  right 
converted  into  one  that  we  are  under  the  most  solemn  ohlijation  tc 
aatisfy  T' 


Mote  contemporaneous  testimony  in  favor  of  "French 

Spoliations." — Debates  in  Congress  for  the  year  1802. 

"  On  the  5th  of  February,  [1802,]  a  memorial  was  presented  from 
sundry  merchants  of  Bahimore,  praying  relief  in  the  case  of  numerous 
and  heavy  losses  sustained  in  consequence  of  the  illegal  capture  and 
condemnation  of  their  property,  under  the  authority  of  the  French 
(iovernraent,  prior  to  the  promulgation  of  the  late  cf>nventi(m  between 
the  United  States  and  France,  [of  Sept.  30,  1800,]  in  the  provision  of 
which  compact  the  memorialists  discover  an  unqualified  surrender  of 
their  claims,  instead  of  the  redress  which  they  .expected  to  obtain. 

"  This  memorial,  with  others  of  a  similar  nature,  were  referred  to  a 
select  committee. 

"  On  the  Vlth  of  March,  Mr.  Griswold  laid  the  following  motion  on 
the  table  : 

"  Rf'solved,  That  it  is  proper  to  make  provision,  by  law,  towards 
indemnifying  the  merchants  of  the  United  States  for  lo8.ses  sustained 
by  thenj  from  French  spoliations,  the  claims  for  which  losses  have  been 
renounced  by  the  final  ratification  of  the  convention  with  Fnince,  as 
published  by  proclamation  of  the  President  of  the  United  States. 

"  On  the  ensuing  day,  a  motion  made  by  Mr.  Griswold,  to  take  up 
this  motion  for  consideration,  was  lost,  without  debate — Yeas,  3o, 
Nays,  39. 

On  the  15th,  the  order  of  the  day  on  the  bill  for  repealing  the 
internal  taxes  having  been  called  for,  Mr.  Griswold  moved  its  post- 
ponement till  the  next  day,  for  the  purpose  of  previously  taking  up 
the  above  resolution. 

*'  The  motion  of  Mr.  Griswold  was  advocated  by  Mr.  Griswold,  of 
Connecticut;  Mr.  Ijowndes,  of  South  Carolina;  Mr.  John  C.  Smith,  of 
Connecticut;  Mr.  Dana,  of  Connecticut ;  Mr.  Bayard,  of  Delaware  ; 
and  Mr.  Rutledge,  of  South  Carolina.  xVnd  opposed  by  Mr.  S.  Smith, 
of  Maryland  ;  Mr.  Mitchell,  of  New  York  ;  Mr.  Gregg,  of  Pennsylva- 
nia ;  Mr.  Kusfis,  of  Ma.s.'iachusetts  ;  and  Mr.  Bacon,  of  Massachusett.s, 
in  a  debate  which  continued  until  the  usual  hour  of  adjournment. 

"  Tho.se  who  advocated  the  motion  observed  that,  though  it  was 
nearly  two  months  since  the  select  committee  had  been  raised  to  whom 
petitions  for  indemnity  had  been  referred,  that  committee  had  not  yet 
met ;  that  it  was  full  time  to  attend  to  a  subject  .so  interesting  as  that 
involved  in  them  ;  that,  as  the  principle  of  indemnity  was  of  a  gen- 
eral abstract  nature,  it  was  not  so  proper  for  the  decision  of  a  select 
coinunttee  as  for  that  of  a  Committee  of  the  Wh(»le  ;  that  it  was  im- 
portant, before  a  decision  was  had  on  the  repeal  of  the  internal  taxes, 
that  the  extent  of  the  inirmnities  allowed  by  th(>  (Inveniment  should 
be  a.scert;iined.      It  was  cii(it4'nded  that    the  claims  of  the  merchant.s 


6 

could  not  be  rejected,  as  they  were  too  just  to  be  disregarded.  The 
sole  object  of  this  resolution  wa*,  to  bring  the  principle  of  indemnity 
before  the  House,  unfettered,  that  its  decision  might  not  Vje  embar- 
rassed by  details,  and  supposing  that  there  might  be  an  indisposition 
to  pledge  the  nation  to  an  unlimited  extent,  the  words  used,  were, 
'  towards  indemuifj'ing.'  It  was,  therefore,  insisted  that  gentlemen 
who  were  disposed  to  do  anything,  could  feel  no  objection'  to  a  resolu- 
tion so  qualified  as  to  extend  only  to  cases  where  Icsses  had  been 
renounced  by  the  treaty. 

"  It  was  said  to  be  cruel,  at  once  without  a  hearing,  to  decide  against 
the  claims  of  our  merchants;  and  that  it  was  evident,  that  whoever 
voted  for  taking  up,  at  that  time,  the  bill  for  the  repeal  of  the  internal 
taxes,  would  vote  not  only  against  'indemnifying,  but  even  against 
hearing;  because,  by  voting  for  a  repeal  of  the  internal  taxes,  he 
would  vote  away  all  means  of  indemnification.  The  repeal  of  the 
internal  taxes  being  the  least  pressing  of  all  the  business  before  the 
House,  ought  to  be  postponed  to  the  last  period  of  the  session  ;  nor 
ought  it  to  be  then  adopted,  without  the  fullest  assurance  of  our 
ability  to  dispense  with  the  product  of  these  taxes.  How  was  it  pos- 
sible, in  the  existing  state  of  things,  to  determine  this  point,  when 
the  appropriations  required  for  the  year  had  not  been  made,  and 
when  the  extent  of  these  demands  had  not  been  ascertained  ? 

''  With  regard  to  the  amount  of  the  claimed  reparation,  it  was 
alleged  that  that  was  a  consideration  which  ought  to  be  placed  alto- 
gether out  of  the  question,  as  common  honesty  required  that  every 
just  debt  should  be  paid,  wherever  an  ability  to  pay  existed,  whether 
it  was  one  dollar  or  one  hundred  millions  of  dollars;  and,  it  was 
added,  that  these  claims  were  the  more  just,  as  the  Government  of 
the  United  States  had  received  an  ample  remuneration  for  any 
demands  which  it  might  satisfy  in  the  abandonment  on  the  part  of 
the  French  Grovernmcnt,  of  our  previous  guarantee  of  the  French 
West  India  possessions.  It  was  finally  declared,  that  a  refusal  to 
take  up  the  subject,  at  this  time,  would  be  considered  as  an  ultimate 
refusal  to  attend  to  it  at  all. 

"  Those  who  opposed  the  motion  denied  the  assertion,  made  on  the 
other  side,  that  the  subject  had  been  neglected.  The  truth  was,  that 
the  first  petition  presented  had  been  immediately  referred  to  a  com- 
mittee, to  whom  all  the  subsequent  petitions  had  likewise  been 
referred.  That  committee  had  made  progress,  but  had  considered  it 
improper  to  decide  until  all  similar  petitions  expected  should  be 
received.  There  was  not  a  doubt  but  that,  as  the  subject  merited,  so 
it  would  receive  a  measure  of  attention  commensurate  to  its  impor- 
tance. But  the  present  resolution  ofi^ered  was  so  broad  and  vague  as 
entirely  to  defeat  its  avowed  end ;  whereas,  the  reference  which  had 
been  already  made,  was  the  most  correct,  inasmuch  as  it  instructed 
the  committee  to  examine  all  the  documents  connected  with  the  sub- 
ject and  to  report  their  opinion  upon  them  ;  on  receiving  which  opin- 
ion, the  House  would  be  sufficiently  informed  to  make  an  enlightened 
decision;  while,  on  the  other  hand,  the  present  proposition  went  to 


commit  the  House  on  the  whole  extent  of  the  subject,  without  the 
least  examination  into  its  details. 

"  The  claims  made  for  spoliated  property  were  extremely  various 
and  dissimilar;  and  though  it  might  be  just  to  grant  indemnity  for 
some,  there  were  other  claims  not  founded  on  any  just  pretensions. 
The  best  way  of  insuring  the  success  of  just  claims  was,  to  avoid  all 
precipitate  steps ;  for,  before  any  claims  could  be  sanctioned,  it  was 
necessary  to  analyze  and  classify,  on  mature  consideration  and  full 
examination,  the  various  descriptions  of  demands. 

"  With  regard  to  the  repeal  of  the  internal  taxes,  that  formed  a 
subject  of  entirely  distinct  consideration.  But  if,  in  compliance  with 
the  unequivocal  wishes  of  the  people,  they  should  be  repealed,  no 
prejudice  would  attach  to  the  just  claims  of  our  merchants,  the  exa- 
mination of  which  would  be  a  work  of  years,  and  which  would,  with- 
out doubt,  be  indemnified,  even  if  it  should  be  necessary,  for  that 
purpose,  to  restore  the  repealed  taxes. 

"  The  question  was  then  taken  on  Mr.  Griswold's  motion  to  post- 
pone the  order  of  the  day,  and  lost — Yeas  33,  Nays  54." 

James  Madison,  then  Secretary  of  State,  writing  to  Mr.  Charles 
Pinckney,  our  Minister  to  Spain,  on  the  6th  of  February,  1804,  says  : 
**  The  plea  on  which  it  seems  the  Spanish  Government  now  principally 
relies,  is  the  erasure  of  the  second  Article  of  our  late  Convention  with 
France,  by  which  France  wax  released  fr<jm  the  inJemnities  (fve  for 
SpttUations  committed  under  their  immediate  responsibility  to  the  United 
States." 

"  We  claim  again.st  her,  not  against  France.  In  releasing  France, 
therefore,  we  have  not  released  her.  The  claims,  again,  from  which 
France  was  released,  were  admitted  by  France,  and  the  release  was 

for  A  VALUABLE  CONSIDERATION,    IN  A  CORRESPONDENT   RELEASE   OF 

THE  United  States  from  certain  claims  on  them." 

iDoc.  102,  P.  795. 

"  In  Seybert's  Statistical  Annals,  page  750,  is  a  stjitement  of  the 
public  debt  of  the  United  States,  from  1791  to  1817,  inclusive.  He 
states  the  debt  unprovided  for  thus,  viz. : 


For  1802,  . 

.  878,754,568  70 

For  1810,  . 

$53,156,532  64 

1808,  . 

.  74,731,922  85 

1811,  . 

47,855,070  50 

1804,  . 

.  85,353,643  22 

1812,  . 

45,035,123  70 

1805,  . 

.  80,534,608  65 

1813,  . 

55,907,452  23 

1806,  . 

.  74,542,957  68 

lSl-4,  . 

80,986,291  65 

1807,  . 

.  67,731,645  62 

]^<15,  . 

99,824,410  70 

1808,  . 

.  64,742,326  26 

1816,  . 

123,016,375  09 

1809,  . 

.  56,732,379  81 

1817,  . 

118,882,865  45 

8 


These  claimants  have  been  constantly  before  Congress  since  the 
claims  were  assumed  by  the  treaty  of  1800.  Their  memorials  have 
produced  the  following  Reports  : 

1802,  Apr,  22,  House,     Mr.  Giles, 
1807,  Feb.  18,       do. 
1822,  Jan.  31,      do. 
1824,  Mar.  25,       do. 

1827,  Feb.     8,  Senate, 

1828,  May  21,  House, 

1828,  May  24,  Senate, 

1829,  Feb.  11,       do. 

1829,  Feb.  16,  House, 

1830,  Feb.  22,  Senate, 

1830,  Dec.  21,       do. 

1831,  Jan.  14,       do. 

1832,  Dec,  20,       do. 

1834,  Dec.  10,  do. 

1835,  Feb.  21,  House, 
1838,  Jan.  20,  do. 
1838,  Mar.  31,  do. 

1840,  Apr.    4,       do. 

1841,  Dec.  29,       do. 

1842,  Jan.  28,  Senate, 

1843,  Jan.  13,       do. 

1844,  Apr.  17,  House, 
1844,  May  29,  Senate, 
1844,  Dec.  23,       do. 
1846,  Feb.     2,      do. 
1846,  Aug.    4,  House, 

1849-50,  favorable  report.  Bill  passed  Senate. 
1850-51,        do.        do.  do. 


Giles,         favorable. 

Marion, 

do. 

Russell, 

do. 

Forsyth, 

do. 

Holmes, 

do. 

Everett, 

do. 

Chambers, 

do. 

Chambers, 

do. 

Bill. 

Everett, 

do. 

Livingston 

do. 

Bill. 

Livingston, 

do. 

Bill, 

passed 

Livingston, 

do. 

Bill, 

passed 

Wilkins, 

do. 

Bill. 

Webster, 

do. 

Bill, 

passed 

Everett, 

do. 

Howard, 

do. 

Bill. 

Cushing, 

(by  consent) 

fav. 

Cushing,  favorable 

.  Bill. 

Cushing, 

do. 

Bill. 

Choate, 

do. 

do. 

Choate, 

do. 

do. 

Ingersoll, 

do. 

do. 

Choate, 

do. 

do. 

Choate, 

do. 

do. 

passed. 

Clayton, 

do. 

do. 

do. 

Smith, 

do. 

do. 

do. 

.5^.' 


^ 


rx 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


im IHliy»ll'S£SI!^  '-'B'WR^'  FACILITY 


A    001  070  997    6 


* 


?«S.^^     »<i; 


<:""..i» 


r^^ 


'"««:, 

# 

'a 

fc...      , 

•■^^    5?: 

Jra^.f*^|K 

^^^ 

....  ■=*.   .. 

■    .--n  '-J 

